For me this all sounds like you gave a friend a lottery ticket, he won a few millions, and now you want a part of it…of course not 
3 Likes
It might be that people get info that there are money left, they regret bad imvestment decisions and then don’t have any moral on what is right or wrong, they just trying to take what they can.
The other way could be lack of knowledge.
1 Like
if @Seneca wants to do something back to the community with the money, he could think of funding some other SN projects. Lot of people are doing great stuff here for free, so maybe sponsor them. But hey, his money, his choice
5 Likes
Hmmm, interesting you have lawyers that would not try arbitrage, not ask the other side for a resolution etc. I would question the lawyers you have experience of. (sounds like reddit speak to me though to say they just sue and that’s that)
What I have outlined to in this thread is the current UK accounting practices in relation to crypto assets as defined by HRMC and stated on their website for all to read. In case of doubt here it is Cryptoassets - GOV.UK You will note any crypto → crypto transaction is a disposal. There is no debate with these folks, that’s it!
You also speak of suing and lawyers, so that’s now UK business law as defined in the companies act 2006 (which I have had to read in great detail in the past) and here that is https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents However decorum is not a UK business!
So international contract law then, another big topic. That is resolved in the jurisdiction of the company or as stated in a contract itself. To be clear a contract can be written or in many cases implied (in Scotland spoken word is a contract, but hard as hell to uphold in court).
These latter cases are where laywers will get involved, in the accounting principles a lawyer will seek advice from a chartered accountant, possibly even a forensic accountant. What I have told you so far is how the accountants are mandated to apply the current legislation for crypto assets and their disposal. For the avoidance of doubt all disposals are measured in fiat.
I hope that helps as wee bit more.
3 Likes
Actually he couldn’t. He has to spend the money on project decorum to benefit the investors who hold the tokens, as per the crowdsale website. He could buy back his own tokens from investors to issue as rewards and fund later development, but even giving the loan to MaidSafe could, in theory, land him in a bit of trouble. He has the responsibility/choice, but they are not ‘his’ coins. He is accountable to investors for how the coins are used. He knows this full well, which is why they are all still there and he hasn’t been partying it up for 5 years.
1 Like
? I said letters get sent… that’s how people settle before any case gets to court, the lawyers communicate with each other, not the parties involved.
Yes, HMRC, the tax board. All tax is always done in fiat. This is not the same in legal dispute resolutions.
No, no I don’t. I speak about the law a bit because people keep trying to insinuate the Harmen has legal defence to act immorally and just keep all the funds indefinitely without ever having any time limit or accountability for the money invested. This is not true. I have been abundantly clear that I personally am not talking to any lawyers. If I did intend to sue then I would not be talking on a forum, I would let my lawyer do that, as would anyone else who actually intended to sue.
Yes indeed, jurisdictions all vary widely. Not on the presence or omission of dates though afaik. I’ve certainly never heard of a western country where one can get infinite time to complete a project by simply not creating a deadline. Perhaps Holland has some strange laws RE contracts, but if you don’t know either then I’d be wary of giving Harmen any legal counsel. There is always a point at which some people consider it an unreasonable wait and the lack of dates in a contract simply negates to make dates a part of it, it doesn’t prevent deadlines being added or the time limit being called during a dispute.
Once again, yes. You are again talking about accountants/tax. You are right on that. For anything relating to tax it will always be in fiat and only fiat. That is not the case for dealing with assets that are disputed in a court though, it’s a totally different process with different precedents and procedures.
1 Like
Do you own shares? And if you think so, do these shares have voting rights?
So you accept you invested in FIAT and are now threatening a legal recourse in contractual law? I think you have lost before you start with this one.
2 Likes
No, I don’t accept either of those things. I invested with crypto (because I did) and I am not threatening to sue. I could not have been any more clear on that. I am responding to your constant comments that try to use the law as a way to justify immoral behaviour and in a way that is also incorrect. I see no reason to discuss legal issues at all, I’d rather we just talk from a moral PoV. It appears all you guys want to do though is defend the investment in SAFE ecosystem (where your interests lie) and sod investors or their needs. If you keep just saying ‘he can legally do whatever he wants’ then I have no choice but to point out that this is not quite true and why. I don’t think my proposal of him giving up perhaps 10% of the BTC liquidity in exchange for PDCs to allow impatient investors to exit after 5 years of no product is at all unreasonable. I think it would actually have been quite reasonable to ask for a lot more and totally unreasonable for anyone to discount/denounce such a suggestion as ‘greedy’ lol. /shrug
1 Like
No, I get no say in Harmen’s buy back and I can’t ‘demand’ one. That does not absolve Harmen of his fiduciary responsibility to investors in his project, which he has not managed to build after 5 years. It is absolutely optional for him to offer a buy back. I never insinuated that it was not. I only suggested (days after he had already agreed to it) that it was wise and I, for one, welcomed it.
1 Like
HMRC will not give a jot about that and you are not above that.
That’s about the 4th or 5th time you have made that accusation. You should pull your coat down your shirt tails are showing.
Nobody said that and you are now way way out on a limb screaming at the moon. You really should stop.
I have laid out the accounting practices and you ignore those.
Now if Decorum chooses to and legally can pay something to some people then it’s up to them. There is zero-forcing them to do that except the kindness of their hearts. Do you feel you have pleaded to that kindness?
I can say no more as you are getting extremely deceitful now. I wish you well in you endeavour
2 Likes
HMRC are the tax bureau, I have no issues with them and will pay my dues. I see no reason why you keep bringing them up tbh? We all established that tax must be paid and accounted for, both personally and by Harmen for the project.
Actually quite a few people have said that in the posts not far above?!
No, I feel that I came on here with good intentions and was completely reasonable, voicing comment for my own interest only after the basic resolution had already been agreed between those complaining and Harmen himself. I also think I made a good suggestion with Seneca getting people to pledge an amount so he knows what the demand is and can make a more qualified and fairer decision with his offer.
What I see here is bitterness and resentment because I don’t believe in SAFE any longer. My moral imperative is that I should salvage some money from this project because it is stuck here, especially if I can to put it to better use, yours is that this project can change the world and should be supported. I find it odd that it’s so hard to see that from my PoV.
2 Likes
This just sounds like buyers remorse to me. I can’t say I haven’t had it before. I could have put money into ethereum and been a millionaire already or invested in Safe and not be. Who would have known though? I don’t think David did. Who would torture themselves with sour investors or not getting first movers advantage in the market etc etc. I could have gotten out many times and it always would have been for profit. Don’t most that invested as early as some of us have Maidsafe to thank for the massive gains? We could have taken the profits or not because we suspect more upside when the project actually launches. What if you get fully out and then the price skyrockets? Would you be upset then? My point is it’s all speculative and I feel like it’s pretty well known in crypto, especially since being involved in the Wild West days, that once you send that investment transaction what you get in return is what you got. Not that what you gave you get back later.
10 Likes
Oh absolutely. I’m a big believer in personal responsibility. I am the one to blame for my choices and their consequences. I do hold a little resentment toward the SAFE project, but the blame lies at my feet squarely and solely.
However, that does not seem relevant to the situation really. Harmen raised too early and hasn’t been able to build. The funds have sat there are swelled to insane amounts. The gains are not there because of Harmen’s hard work or success, they are there because we sent the coins there and he didn’t touch them. Credit to him, that should earn him and the project a great situation because it was a disciplined move showing integrity and savvy. That doesn’t mean the guys who sent the money there and now want to be liquid again should not also benefit. Or that Harmen should recoil from the idea of rewarding those people who believed in him and bought into his idea and bought his holder tokens. We sent coins in the hopes of making a profit from our investment and the promised realisation of Clikes and Decorum after all. 5 years is a long wait to still not be on the starting blocks yet. Fortunately for him he can do it all quite easily. He can have his cake and eat it thanks to a very profitable decision he made when he kept the funds untouched. /shrug
Yes, but if the project hasn’t even launched a basic product after 5 years (because they can’t) then it is quite reasonable to want to be offered to buy back with a decent % of the appreciation in exchange for your stake back. Everyone would have some period of time they would consider too long to wait to even launch the protocol. For some perhaps 10 years is the cut off, maybe 20? It seems there are some for whom 5 years is enough to wait.
2 Likes
You have a lot of integrity in self sovereignty which is a great quality.
But isn’t it a factor? If you don’t believe in Safe anymore and you want to derisk (and already partially have) but have made choices in the past in which you don’t have ownership or control (not your keys, not your crypto) then doesn’t that mean you have to persuade people into something outside of the general unwritten rules in the crypto sphere on top of of the purchase agreement in a somewhat unprecedented situation?
I feel like everyone has a biased angle here and it’s almost impossible not to have but given the general understanding in crypto investing and self accountability then it seems like trying to argue ourselves out of that because we’re not happy with the results (our decisions + unforeseeable events = speculation).
I’m not picking sides, in fact I barely want to comment but the underlying argument seems incongruent given how we view “investing” aka speculation in the crypto sphere.
7 Likes
As is always the case 
I don’t think that’s the argument at all myself. I invested in safe-fs and n-99 and they wasted the cash and I’m not here trying to get money back from them. I have made plenty of bad choices and never asked for any money back from any of them. This is not quite so simple though. The project hasn’t been able to deliver anything substantial and might never be able to on SAFE, the money is still sitting there and it is worth 40x. I’m not sure the consensus in crypto would be that the founder simply owns it all as some have suggested, or that the investors waiting for delivery can’t in some way equate the value of their holder tokens to the stock asset value of the project in a buy back?!
2 Likes
Yes but if people were trying to they know it would be fruitless because they don’t have any form of investment/money left. At that point it would be legal action which no one wants to go through or pay for. The convenience here is that Harmen should have easy access to the original investments. So not quite comparable in my opinion.
I wouldn’t say the founder necessarily though the founder often is likely in control of the funds but again if you sent money to a project and receive something in return, that is the end of the transaction and the relationship between the company/team/founder and investors.
The fact that Harmen indicated a potential buy back probably made it hard to put the genie back in the bottle. I just don’t want to see people try to hold his feet to the fire (not suggesting you are) when he’s also indicated he won’t be swayed by peoples opinions.
Yeah, that’s what I just said isn’t it? The difference here is that Harmen hasn’t spent the money or been able to build the protocol. It’s not so simple as just ‘he failed and wasted the cash’. He hasn’t been able to try really and he hasn’t wasted the money on trying too early. He might never be able to try. So how long is long enough to wait to be able to try?
2 Likes
Right, and there is a difference which is why I still don’t think it’s even worth mentioning. I feel like this truly is a bit unprecedented so needs careful consideration but Harmen has already stated he’ll do what he thinks is fair. I don’t think you shouldn’t be allowed to voice your opinions here, I’m just not sure how beneficial the back and forth is with anyone tbh.
Once again though, once you’ve transacted one asset for another that is usually the end of it.
Harmen is MVP for having the diamond hands lol.
4 Likes
For anyone who is willing to get some $ back from original crowdale.
If the price of PDC would be same today as you bought it, would you agree to sell it?